Manufacture under central excise turns on contractor control and hired labour status, not mere assembly by an outside contractor.

An outside contractor supplied the crane parts and assembled the overhead crane unloader in the appellants' factory, but there was no evidence that the contractor acted as the appellants' hired labourer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the appellants were not treated as the manufacturer of the crane unloader and were not liable to pay central excise duty. The question whether the crane was movable or immovable property was left undecided as unnecessary in view of that finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were the manufacturer of the overhead crane unloader and liable to pay central excise duty.

Analysis: The parts of the crane were supplied by the outside contractor, who also charged labour for assembling the crane unloader in the appellants' factory. No evidence was produced to show that the contractor was a hired labourer of the appellants so as to treat the appellants as the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of this finding, it was unnecessary to decide whether the crane was movable or immovable property.

Conclusion: The appellants were not the manufacturer of the overhead crane unloader and were not liable to pay central excise duty.

---